the program that created universal health coverage in san francisco. it's amazing. the problems we have had, we have had are people taking their children to the emergency rooms for primary care. and we're eliminating that through programs that make sure that everybody has health insurance. so yes, i agree with this. and i think it needs to be expanded and it's relatively cheap. and my entire public health career has been in prevention. and what happens is when people have health insurance and they are seeing a doctor on a regular basis or health care provider and getting preventative services, that saves us so much money in the end. and also, for these businesses that are having to pay, their employees will be healthier. so it's a win-win in every situation and we need to really expand and i agree with this program. absolutely. thank you, chris for the question. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to add that i

have been in a toothpaste commercial, crest toothpaste commercial, as a matter of fact and because of having dental services since i was a kid through access to health care is why my teeth look like this now. so i think it's important to look at this from that kind of perspective. making sure that we have access to health care is important and finding creative ways to make sure we have access to health care is equally important. and that is what i would do as supervisor is make sure that we go after the monies that we need to make sure that everyone has access. thanks. >> thank you. the next question is for mr. everest, mr. resignato and miss selby. commissioners who voted against the plan, said that it gave san francisco a benefit that other

regions in the south bay and east bay would not share. would you support san francisco using city taxpayer dollars to pay mtc for the cost of providing free muni service to young people in san francisco? in other words, if mtc isn't willing to do it on its own, should the city be paying more money into mtc to get the service out of mtc? >> as a last resort. that would be certainly the last way of funding it that i would look at. there is a continuity problem between the different transportation agencies that make it a little bit unworkable. at this present time i think one of the ways to deal with the issue is to see if the nuts and bolts of it can be tweaked a little bit to make it into a workable solution. maybe that may take a little bit more time, but i don't think as a sort of knee-jerk reaction we need to put the burden on taxpayers. with that being said it's vitally important for people to get around and especially those

who can't afford and if you are a young person, i think that is a very important consideration as well. again, the focus should be on tweaking the nuts and bolts of continuity issue to find a work-around there before putting the burden on the taxpayer. >> the former mayor of bodega has a quote that says a developed country is not one where poor people buy cars, but one that rich people ride public transportation. and i believe, and i think this is one thing i have been talking about, even though i am a health guy, those affect health. the great thing about having muni be free for youth, and all youth. i don't think it should be income-tested either. is that you get young people on public transportation and they get used to it and they become your riders later on. so i think it's -- i think, like

daniel said, the nuts and bolts of being able to pay for it, we have to figure out. but this is a priority. i think public transportation can transform this city into something completely [tk-efrplg/] or different with the health, public safety, and other things so we have to start thinking big. >> miss selby. >> chris i will give you my $5 as well. this was not a san francisco riders position, but i think we should have free muni for youth and i believe it should be for all youth for a slightly different reason than andrew. it's kind of the idea of social security. i think when we have rich people and poor people getting benefits, it sticks around. so we have a lofty goal, 62% of

our trips are taken in cars and we want to drop this to 50%. this is a goal we have had for many, many years and we're going to have do a lot to make that happen. one thing we're going to do is that we don't have school buses anymore for most our schools, so to have them take the bus, have them bike and walk. it's only $8.9 million. we can get $76 million if on average we speed up muni by one miles per hour. >> thank you. we have a few more transportation questions here. next one is for mr. davis, miss olague and mr. resignato. the agency has proposed to meter street parking on sunday afternoons. do you support the replacement of conventional parking meters with variable rate meters in

district 5 and would you support metered parking on sundays? >> i'm not a huge proponent, but i do support the mandate parking. i think it's a viable source of revenue for mta. there are other some of which have been talked about and some are already being worked on including congestion pricing and a downtown transit tax assessment district because downtown businesses are the greatest benficiencies and should be paying their fair share in terms of busing their employees on a daily basis. i think muni has had a shortfall ever since the state gas tax money, since we lost that money and we have to look at how we're going to solve muni's long-term budget problem and get a muni system that is efficient and runs on time and

not cutting fares while expanding fees. we can do that with a vehicle license fee on the local level, with a gas tax on the local level and i would like to work with our state legislators to make that possible here in san francisco. >> thank you. miss olague? >> well, again, we have, as most of you know a transit-first policy in san francisco, and in my conversations with the mta, that is their justification for wanting to impose these fees or parking meter usage and what not. but i think that even though i have been a huge proponent of transit first for a number of years and i do support some of this to some degree. on sundays, when i talk to people, some who have come only to san francisco on sundays to attend church, and you know, they have been displaced from their communities, they have had to leave the city. and it really does impose a

certain hardship on people who are church-goers. and also, small merchants are very, very concerned about the impacts it's going to have on their businesses. so i think that i wouldn't want to move too aggressively forward with some of these policy changes without an intense conversation with neighbors, with the churches, and with the merchants. >> thank you. mr. resignato. >> i agree. we have come about the idea that parking is free and what that has done is caused scarcity with parking and also made people more likely to use their vehicles than public transit. so we have to move towards market-rate parking, i think. if you want to be -- and this is probably not a popular position, but the price of a residential parking permit is too cheap, actually. i'm an economist, too. so if you spend -- we need to raise

that actually and we will find that a lot of people may substitute out of using their vehicles. because it might be too expensive. and also, i want to talk about the minimum parking requirements for apartments for new development. and i think we need to get rid of them and start building developments without so much parking. so that we can move towards people taking public transportation. can i just say one more thing? >> do you want to use your time card? >> i will use one. [ laughter ] >> shoot. i don't -- i agree with supervisor olague that sunday on sunday, i think there needs -- we need to ease into it. i really do feel like people need a break from parking meters. >> i think we need a little market in time cards here. [ laughter ] >> that would be cool. >> anybody want to sell a time

card to mr. everett? [ laughter ] >> go ahead. >> thank you. you know folk in some conversations it's better to have all of your cards on the table. no pun intended >> [ laughter ] that being said an article finally came out in the san francisco guardain that said we want to tax people out of their cars. fair play. once you have the argument in place, then we can actually talk about. it that is what this is about. the health benefits are such that folks should essentially be taxed out of their cars. i don't take that position. i think that it essentially breaks the backs of the working poor in this city and it's just another example of how progressive politics in this city are not really kind to the working poor, and in some instances, in many instances,

people of color. that being said as far as the sunday parking meter thing, you know what? religion aside, least one day of the week it would be nice if san francisco city government was off the backs of everyday residents. [ applause ] >> i like that. thank you. >> all right. next question. san francisco's transportation inserve drivers, bicyclists and transit uses. bicyclists are not charged for the privilege of using or parking on public roadways. mr. davis, mr. everett and miss selby should the city assess fees on bicycle owners to pay for transportation improvements? >> i don't think so and i will tell you why because the city

is moving in a direction that i think they should be which is encouraging more people to get out of their cars and to get onto bikes and to use our streets and walk the streets. you know, i think we need to be visionary about getting and meeting our goals. we have a goal of 20% of all trips in san francisco being taken on a bike by 2020. the bike coalition, which is one of my endorsements, as well district 5 group have been advocating for this connecting the city plan, the bike coalition for cross town bikeways to make our streets safer for bike riders. i think we need to move more in that direction and assessing fees on bike riders for ridion bikes is san francisco is not going to work towards the goal we have in the city now. >> thank you, mr. everett?

>> i don't -- certainly i want to protect the right of people to own and park vehicles here in the city and county of san francisco. i think that is vitally important. that being said, i think it would be disingenuous not to state the obvious which is cars damage our roadways certainly a lot more than a bicycle or a pedestrian would. and therefore, a larger, certainly larger amount of the money and fees should be paid by car owners. that is just logical. i think that should be the position of the city and county. >> miss selby? >> when i look at bicycles, i actually like to look at bicycles in two different ways. i think they are recreational bicyclists and then commuter tourists and i think it's actually quite confusing to bike in san francisco.

especially if come from somewhere else you may have no idea what is going on. so one we have an extra fee for people who come from -- who are tourists, maybe an extra dollar that they may when they rent the bicycles, so they can have some idea of how to bicycle in san francisco. because a lot of bicyclists don't even know that you can't ride -- it's not legal to ride on the sidewalk, for example. and i personally i'm kind of scared when i ride in san francisco. so for me, if you are looking to assess fees, i would assess fees perhaps to the tourists, who are coming in to town, and have as part of that assessment an educational process of how do we ride bicycles here in san francisco? because it's kind of confusing. >> thank you. >> the next question is for miss breed, mr. davis and miss johnson. a recent civil grand jury report called the san francisco ethics commission essentially a sleeping watchdog.

at the request of supervisor campos the city requested a comparison of ethics in san îg:]ñand los angele identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisors, what if anything would you propose to strength the city's ethics laws. i will start with mr. davis. >> strong ethic laws are essential. what is happening with our sunshine task force and hope davis can speak to this since she recently served on the task force. these need to be strengthened and one problem we have is around enforcement. i would like to see more of the ethical violations of larger committees, some of which are operating, for instance, in some shady areas of law.

one was the run he ed run, the committee for mayor ed lee last year and the campaigns that aren't swaying the politics of city, the way the run ed run campaign did. so i think that is one the issues and improving our good government and ethic laws in san francisco. >> miss breed, would you like to address the question? do you want me to repeat it? >> yes. >> sure. a recent chief civil grand jury report, at the request of supervisor campos the city conducted a comparison of laws identifying ways our ethic laws could be strengthened. as supervisor, what would you propose if anything to strength

the ethic laws? >> i'm really happy about this kind of question. i teach ethical leadership for a program that trains democratic women to run for office. when i went to university here in san francisco one course i took to get my masters was a course in ethical leadership. i think it's important that ethics are at the core of our educational system starting from pre-k. and i think in terms of strengthening laws here in the city, we need to look at a stronger, more kind of law-based, educationally-based ethics system that really, truly is around enforcement. and not what we witnessed in the past, which is somewhat of a circus. i think violating ethical laws in our city, there needs to be real punishments that make sense, but i think we need to

strengthen those laws aggressive and to look to our educational institutions in order to make it a more concrete department in our city. >> thank you. miss johnson? >> i still -- the sunshine ordinance task force refers violation of the open government laws to the ethics commission between 2004 and 2011, we had referred -- i was on it ÷ cases went to them. and they haven't heard -- they have only heard one out of those cases. they found a violation and they requested that the mayor remove the president of the library commission. so we need an ethics commission that is willing to enforce our laws. here in san francisco, they don't have to start reporting certain campaign financing until it's $5,000. in los angeles, that is $1,000. so we could reform the laws in that way.

there is a possibility that we should just eliminate the ethics commission. it's appointed by the departments that are at city hall. so they appoint their friends, which makes it inherently somewhat difficult for them to perform the job they are supposed to firm. this was created in 1993 and it was said to have created an extra layer of bureaucracy and i think that is playing out. >> thank you. experts say there is a 62% chance that an earthquake causing widespread damage will strike san francisco, or the greater bay area within the next 30 years. what new polices should the city institute in order to minimize the human and economic costs of the next big one? this is a question for miss breed, mr. davis and miss johnson. >> i think that we all -- we are already doing some of those things. for example, many of

the new buildings, we're making them as sturdy as we possibly can. we're doing a lot of retrofit projects. part of the work that we do -- i raised over $2.5 million to renovate the african-american art and cultural complex. a lot of that money was used to do retrofit and i think a big part of what we have do as a city is to make sure we take care of our assets and facilities and make sure that we have and are communicating to people how they protect themselves and keep themselves safe and secure when an earthquake hits. and they may not have access to emergency services. i think the training that exists and that is being brought into many communities could really help us learn how to survive on our own, so that we're taking care of one another when that happens, but more importantly we need to ensure we're taking care of our assets.

>> thank you. >> there are a number of strategies of one fully funding our firefighters are our first-responders and the fires that result from the earthquake is often just, as much as a threat to our public safety as the earthquakes themselves. seismic safety is a huge issue and i think we need to continue to take issue around that in san francisco. public education is a huge issue as well. they say sometimes we have 72 hours before help can be on the way and making sure that folks understand how to survive through a 72-hour period. i think we should be doing more outreach about nert and to create jobs for youth in disaster relief methods. it's an economic development tool and when the big one does

hit, we have more folks that are trained and ready to help their neighbors . thank you,. >> miss johnson? >> yes, actually i'm a certified nert person. it's a lot -- i subject you learn how to do it. they teach you all kinds of great things. they teach you that you need to educate other people. that you need to do the most good for the most people right where you are. san francisco also has the 72-hours.org and they do a great job and it includes pets, as well as people. this is one example where san francisco has dropped the ball on water. we're going to need a lot of water. i know we have water here, but i'm going back that they haven't properly assessed how to take care of groundwater infrastructure. all of that water in hetch hetchy is in yosemite, far away. we used to use 14.5 million

gallons from our groundwater. now we only use 2.2 and it's not there. and this is the kind of thing that you need and you need to think about it now before the big one hited. >> hits. >> thank you, miss selby. >> yes, i was also going to pull out any nert card because i'm so proud of it. it's awesome. my neighbors just got the courage award from the red cross today and nert got an award from red cross. so i would love and i have not veted this idea, so i don't know if it's possible or not. but i think we should require nert training. we're in a city that the first-responders, even if you had a gazillion firefighters, first of all, most of them don't live here unfortunately and secondly we're going to need all of us when it comes to a big earthquake. when you get this training they

say 80% of the people will be needing to be helped. very minorly injureded and then we'll have the training to help them. so i think that would be a really awesome thing if we could all be nert trained and require it. >> mr. resignato, is this time card 3 or 4 for you? >> this is 3. >> from what it sounds like, û: think i need to become a nert, because i'm a nerd already, but i could become a nert. i love the prevention questions. keep them coming. i'm passionate about prevention. there is a simple thing to make sure that when our earthquake hits we can do what is called "shelter in place." we can keep people in their homes. basically we have lot of multi-family homes with soft understories with a garage, but there is a lot of weight on top. what happened in the loma

prieta earthquake, it's a simple process to retrofit those. it costs $3,000 to $4,000 and if we do an educational campaign to homeowners to let them know this would significantly reduce earthquake insurance and keeping tenants. >> thank you. we have reached the final question in the debate, and the question is this. what in your opinion is the single most important policy issue in san francisco today? and if elected, what would you do to address it? and we'll start at one end of the table and move to the other. so miss breed or miss selby.

>> boy, it's hard to pick one. i think that right now we are really suffering -- i'm going to look at district 5 in particular. we have a safety issue in district 5 right now. it has gotten more dangerous, particularly in the lower haight, hayes valley and even in pacific heights. we have a situation where in 23 days this were 100 assaults. and of those 100 assaults, 67 of them were for iphones. i actually have a relatively simple solution for this. i would like us to look at -- it would be nice if you could ask apple to disable their phones. they now able to erase your information, but they will not disable your phone or at&t. unfortunately i'm afraid government is going to have to step in and say you must do this or we will sue you.

there is lots of police time and energy and worse, there are many, many citizens who are getting really badly hurt for their iphones and their ipads. >> thank you, mr. resignato. >> i'm going to go back to transit issues. i think we need to double down on being a transit-first city, which means improving muni, so it's a viable transit option for everybody. i agree with increasing bike access and even experting with sunday streets, which is closing off a lot of your streets to car traffic. i think it's a great model, but i also think we have to do the simple things like fix the roads and sidewalks. there are a lot of places in district 5 where the sidewalks are in disrepair. i have had several friends who have tripped and fallen, but really who that impacts the most are the elderly and the disabled, who have a hard enough time getting around, let

alone if the sidewalk is messed up. transit issues are important and i would like to see those things worked on and that is what i will do as supervisor. >> miss olague? >> as supervisor i have been working on many issues, so it's really difficult for me to prioritize any one set of issues. so we have been prioritizing transit issues and affordable housing issues. and the rest of it, but right now i believe the city is really challenged with issues dealing with equity and i believe there are many people who are being forced out of the city in part because they can't find jobs. so jobs has been a huge priority for us. trying to find -- trying to work with city agencies, with community-based organizations, to make sure that young people, especially, have opportunities to make choices in their lives. and so that is why we have been focused very much on

job-training and wrap-around services in that respect also. i think there are older adults and other folks who also could use additional employment. so i think jobs is a big issue for me. >> miss johnson? >> i agree that it's difficult to pick just one issue. but i think a lot of our policy issues that we're having, that you have in front of us come from a lack of accountable. where is your money being spent? how is it being spent? there is a lot of mismanagement. and there is a lot of money that goes places we don't know where it's going. and you can see it running through all of this discussion of all of the polices. are our elected officials making policy decisions that are sustainable? that promote equity? or are they for-sale to the highest bidder? these are the things that we